| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/17/2007 06:27:10 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The host is immune from liability as long as they comply with the law on removing the infringed work and identifying the infringer. |
The "take down" defence is designed to protect website hosting facilities and sites where there is automated upload but no form of moderation. For sites employing a degree of moderation, the defence is not available. Icanhaz employs moderation and cannot take advantage of the defence: "after you upload your pix it needs to be approved by tofu or chz".
|
|
|
|
07/17/2007 06:40:12 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by bod:
The issue is that DPC are attaching restrictions to the images which override any Creative Comnmons license I want to use. They are effectively saying that whatever I say about reusing my images is untrue. I don't believe I ever agreed to them doing so.
This is getting beyond my comprehension now anyway, and the SC seem to consider my copyright to be a "little annoyance" so I'll just let Larry Lessig and the Creative Commons mob sort it out for me : ) |
Maybe I can explain a little better.
Under a Creative Commons licence, you permit people to relicense your image to new people, but on the condition that they always use the Creative Commons licence to do so. If you licensed your image to Spazmo99 under Creative Commons licence, he would not be permitted to use your image commercially, or to relicense to new people on anything other than a new Creative Commons licence.
If Spazmo99 wanted to use your image commercially, there is nothing stopping him from calling you up and buying from you a new, additional licence on different terms to use the image commercially (a so-called parallel licence).
When you upload images to DPC, you agree to the DPC TOS licence. That is a different set of terms to the Creative Commons licence. DPC has the rights that you give it under the DPC TOS licence. These do not include the right to re-license the image to new people under something similar to the Creative Commons licence.
The DPC TOS do permit DPC to display your image with the "do not copy" tag. Since the copy of your image sitting on DPC's servers is subject to the DPC TOS licence, not the Creative Commons licence, you have permitted DPC to do this.
Message edited by author 2007-07-17 18:42:30.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2007 07:03:28 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by bod:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Did you post your images here by choice? Was a gun held to your head?
Unless you were somehow forced into uploading your images, you agreed to the TOS.
I'm sure that you can create your own site to post your images and give them away under whatever licensing scheme you want. Just don't expect DPC to be that site for you. |
So if one day DPC decided to "sublicense" all your images under a Creative Commons license that would be okay? That's basically what is happening to me, except the other way round. I was using the CC license on this site long before the restricting text was added to images.
No, nobody held a gun to my head, but nobody told me the site would start forcing their own terms on my property either. I still agree to the TOS, but that TOS does not allow this site to stop me from licensing my images as I want to. |
You can still license your images as you see fit. Who's preventing you?
DPC is not the correct site for you to offer them under the CC license. You should do that elsewhere. It's only the copy residing on DPC that is tagged "Do not copy". Is DPC the only place you can post your images? Nothing in the TOS forbids it. You can post a thousand different images and have a different licensing agreement for each one. |
|
|
|
07/18/2007 05:08:22 PM · #54 |
Standard disclaimer that I'm speaking personally, and not on behalf of DPChallenge, applies.
Any media that you've posted on DPChallenge, has been licensed by Challenging Technologies (DPC) under the license indicated in the Terms of Use, and not the Creative Commons Attribution/Non-Commercial/Share Alike licence (by-nc-sa). As such, our rights and obligations with regard to the use of those images is governed by the Terms of Use, and NOT by-nc-sa. This means that DPC has certain rights and obligations that don't apply to Creative Commons licensees. Likewise, Creative Commons licensees have certain rights and obligations that DPC does not.
As an example, the Creative Commons by-nc-sa license does not permit commercial use of works used under that license. For this reason (in my opinion), DPC could not license your images under by-nc-sa even if it wanted to, since the use of your images on DPC (and especially on DPC Prints) is commercial.
Since the DPC Terms of Use only allow DPC to sub-license your images "to continue the specific operation and marketing of the site," one could question whether DPC even has the right to redistribute your images under Creative Commons, since it could be argued that use falls outside the specific operation of the site.
Now, the good news for you is that, since the license you granted DPC is non-exclusive, you have the right to also license your images to others under almost any license you like -- including Creative Commons. With that said, DPC is not obligated to act as your agent to distribute images under those licenses -- and it's an open question whether they would even have the right to do so, given the ToU restriction on "specific operation or marketing of the site."
That said, when we discover (or are made aware of) cases where end users' copyrights may have been infringed, we notify the photographer of our findings and offer our assistance, if desired, in tracking down the potential offender. We do not act on the photographer's behalf, and certainly not without his or her permission. As a practical matter, that means if we discover that someone downloaded one of your Creative Commons images from DPC, we're not going to take any action against that user -- at least, not unless they've overstepped the limits of that license.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
07/18/2007 05:14:43 PM · #55 |
By the way... I should add that I have nothing against Creative Commons -- and have in fact produced some CC and GFDL licensed work as well.
My assertion is simply that DPC is not obligated to act as distribution agent (though, as a practical matter, we have no problem with it), and that enacting a change in the filename structure on a per-user basis as you've requested may be prohibitively difficult from a server/programming standpoint.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
07/18/2007 05:57:05 PM · #56 |
I just have to say that I can't think of a sillier discussion on DPC, off the top of my head.
He and his readers are adding captions to generally unmarketable photos on the internet. Many of which are taken by those submitting said photos.
The addition of the captions (IMO, IANAL) changes the situation from image theft to parody humor, which is covered, and allowed, under copyright law.
I happen to think they're f'ing hilarious, but I've been a gamer and computer geek for more than 20 years. That's definitely in-line with society which falls into either "love it" or "what the hell, that's stupid" with very few "don't care"s mixed in. |
|
|
|
07/18/2007 06:13:16 PM · #57 |
Personally if one of my images were used on his site i wouldn't mind, and think so long as hes not selling my images directly.
I think he's profitting from something which otherwise no one would, and so good luck to him.
He's not doing any harm, and it's in a very lighthearted manner, before people scream sue, sue, sue!
If people don't want him to use their images, email him and he'll take them down. |
|
|
|
07/18/2007 06:45:06 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by chimericvisions:
I just have to say that I can't think of a sillier discussion on DPC, off the top of my head.
He and his readers are adding captions to generally unmarketable photos on the internet. Many of which are taken by those submitting said photos.
|
Just to be clear - I agree that this thread concerns a non-subject as far as photographers goes. My various comments are intended to correct misunderstandings of how copyright and licensing works (as the misinformation threads like this spout is irksome to me).
However - I think that you are probably wrong that these are "parody" and permissible under copyright law. Just because something is funny or intended to be funny, it does not automatically become free of copyright issues. The parody right is very limited and I would assess inapplicable here.
The site appears to copy and alter images without the owner's permission - technically it is almost certainly in breach. But no single image there is likely to give the owner any particularly valuable rights, so don't expect it to be taken down anytime soon.
|
|
|
|
07/18/2007 07:13:52 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by chimericvisions:
I happen to think they're f'ing hilarious, but I've been a gamer and computer geek for more than 20 years. That's definitely in-line with society which falls into either "love it" or "what the hell, that's stupid" with very few "don't care"s mixed in. |
i'm so glad. i'm sitting over here quietly thinking. . ."but i love that site!"
:o) |
|
|
|
07/18/2007 07:21:18 PM · #60 |
Oh yeah, forgot to say i think they're so awesome.
This is the one i know |
|
|
|
07/18/2007 07:53:36 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by Ben:
Personally if one of my images were used on his site i wouldn't mind, and think so long as hes not selling my images directly.
I think he's profitting from something which otherwise no one would, and so good luck to him.
He's not doing any harm, and it's in a very lighthearted manner, before people scream sue, sue, sue!
If people don't want him to use their images, email him and he'll take them down. |
If he posts images without permission, he's harming the person who owns that image. If they don't mind, that still doesn't make it OK. You may not mind, but don't presume that because you don't care it makes it OK or ridiculous for anyone else to care.
I may not care if someone steals my wallet since it's empty. Someone else that has their ID, money and credit cards in their wallet will be somewhat more concerned about getting their wallet stolen. In either case, it's still illegal and wrong.
|
|
|
|
07/18/2007 09:29:44 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by bod:
... the SC seem to consider my copyright to be a "little annoyance" ... |
Please recheck your sources -- I specifically stated that as my personal opinion, not that of the SC or any other entity. |
|
|
|
03/26/2008 10:29:15 AM · #63 |
|
|
|
03/26/2008 10:55:28 AM · #64 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
 |
too funny Mr Slip :)
N
|
|
|
|
03/26/2008 01:35:26 PM · #65 |
As long as this old thread has been revived,
here's a link to the contest thread.
Message edited by author 2008-03-26 13:35:51. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 01:49:59 AM EDT.
